Opinion
February 25, 1999
After the results of two urinalysis tests indicated the presence of opiates, petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with and found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from using controlled substances. The misbehavior report and positive results of the urinalysis tests, together with the testimony of a technician from the company that manufactures the testing apparatus verifying that the medications that petitioner was taking at the time his urine was tested would not produce a false positive for opiates, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Rodriguez v. Coombe, 249 A.D.2d 655). Furthermore, given the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis tests and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, we reject petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of the chain of custody and adequacy of the testing procedures used (see, Matter of Bonaguro v. Goord, 256 A.D.2d 849; Matter of Medina v. Goord, 249 A.D.2d 655, 656). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent that they are preserved for our review, have been found to be unpersuasive.
Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.